You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In case of upgrade on License.sol, the change of License.sol, the migration would be required. To don't require migrations, isolate the owners of licenses in a separate (probably ERC721) token.
Summary
Licenses would be created by a controlling contract, which contains the logic for how license token is generated or destroyed, but they are stored in chain and managed by the users as a NFT in a dedicated address. The contract managing the sell of licenses would change controller of the NFT on a migration, so the new license market logic would own the token, making the upgrade seamless for existent users and contracts relaying on the verification of this token.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm not sure of this enhancement. Under what conditions would a migration be required?
Currently the licenses are handled as a mapping, and to determine if a user has a license, we check if that mapping has a value for the user address. Doing an upgrade should not affect the state of this variable.
Feature Request
In case of upgrade on License.sol, the change of License.sol, the migration would be required. To don't require migrations, isolate the owners of licenses in a separate (probably ERC721) token.
Summary
Licenses would be created by a controlling contract, which contains the logic for how license token is generated or destroyed, but they are stored in chain and managed by the users as a NFT in a dedicated address. The contract managing the sell of licenses would change controller of the NFT on a migration, so the new license market logic would own the token, making the upgrade seamless for existent users and contracts relaying on the verification of this token.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: